The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by an Irish plaintiff in a long-running investment dispute, upholding decisions that set aside service of proceedings on a defendant resident in the Isle of Man and refused to renew the summons. The court did not determine the underlying claim or whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction to hear it.
The proceedings concern investments made between July 2011 and March 2012, totalling €965,000: €490,000 attributed to the plaintiff’s pension fund and €475,000 invested personally. The plaintiff claims the defendant received the money and agreed to hold it in trust and repay it. He relies on two agreements, dated July 2011 and December 2012, which he says the defendant signed.
The defendant disputes personal liability and says he did not receive the funds. He alleges the agreements are forgeries. He says the pension fund invested in a Norwegian property development through a share purchase, while the personal investment was made through a British Virgin Islands company. Those accounts, and the validity of the agreements, remain unresolved.
The plaintiff issued a plenary summons in May 2014. Earlier orders allowing service out of Ireland were set aside. In 2018, a High Court judge authorised another attempt to serve the defendant, but the summons had expired and had not been renewed. In May 2020, the High Court set aside that service and discharged the order authorising it. In December 2021, it refused the plaintiff’s application to renew the summons under a rule requiring special circumstances to justify an extension.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant’s conditional appearance, entered to contest jurisdiction, did not amount to acceptance of service or submission to the Irish courts. It also held that the service challenge could proceed under the rule used by the defendant, even though the summons had expired before the service order was made.
On renewal, the appeal court found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s decision. It considered the lengthy delay, repeated procedural failures and likely prejudice to the defendant. That prejudice increased after the death in October 2021 of a potential witness whose account was disputed by the parties. The court also noted the plaintiff’s hardship if the claim could not proceed, but concluded that special circumstances justifying renewal had not been established.
The court dismissed both appeals. Its provisional view was that the defendant should receive the costs of both appeals, subject to written submissions by the plaintiff within 14 days and a response from the defendant within a further 14 days.